Use of Checklists in Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations, 2010 to 2018

Watts, Rory; Li, Ian

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.10.006

Cited by 63 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One limitation identified was ambiguity in interpreting the checklist used to evaluate EE methodological quality, especially on some items such as CHEERS item 18 which refers to study parameters. Conducting the review using independent pairs facilitated identification of the ambiguities and increased the likelihood of the results being transparent and comparable over time [117]. In addition, the researchers came from different disciplines (pharmacy, medicine and economics) which allowed a comprehensive view and was a strength of the study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review

Parody-Rúa

Rubio-Valera

Guevara-Cuéllar

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic evaluations using Real World Data (RWD) has been increasing in the very recent years, however, this source of information has several advantages and limitations. The aim of this review was to assess the quality of full economic evaluations (EE) developed using RWD. A systematic review was carried out through articles from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Included were studies that employed RWD for both costs and effectiveness. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Of the 14,011 studies identified, 93 were included. Roughly half of the studies were carried out in a hospital setting. The most frequently assessed illnesses were neoplasms while the most evaluated interventions were pharmacological. The main source of costs and effects of RWD were information systems. The most frequent clinical outcome was survival. Some 47% of studies met at least 80% of CHEERS criteria. Studies were conducted with samples of 100–1000 patients or more, were randomized, and those that reported bias controls were those that fulfilled most CHEERS criteria. In conclusion, fewer than half the studies met 80% of the CHEERS checklist criteria.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review

Parody-Rúa

Rubio-Valera

Guevara-Cuéllar

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To assess the quality of the economic evaluation, the Consensus on Health Economics Checklist-extended (CHEC-extended) was used [17]. This checklist is an extension of the original CHEC checklist that includes questions about model-based economic evaluations [18,19].…”

Section: Selection Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic literature review of the economic burden of spinal muscular atrophy and economic evaluations of treatments

Dangouloff

Botty

Beaudart

et al. 2021

Orphanet J Rare Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a rare and devastating condition for which new disease-modifying treatments have recently been approved. Given the increasing importance of economic considerations in healthcare decision-making, this review summarizes the studies assessing the cost of SMA and economic evaluations of treatments. A systematic review of the literature in PubMed and Scopus up to 15 September 2020 was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Results Nine studies reporting the annual cost of care of patients with SMA and six evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of SMA treatments were identified. The average annual cost of SMA1, the most frequent and severe form in which symptoms appear before the age of 6 months were similar according to the different studies, ranged from $75,047 to $196,429 per year. The yearly costs for the forms of the later-onset form, called SMA2, SMA3, and SMA4, which were usually pooled in estimates of healthcare costs, were more variable, ranging from $27,157 to $82,474. The evaluations of cost-effectiveness of treatment compared nusinersen treatment against standard of care (n = 3), two treatments (nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec) against each other and no drug treatment (n = 1), nusinersen versus onasemnogene abeparvovec (n = 1), and standard of care versus nusinersen with and without newborn screening (n = 1). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of nusinersen compared to standard of care in SMA1 ranged from $210,095 to $1,150,455 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and that for onasemnogene abeparvovec ranged from $32,464 to $251,403. For pre-symptomatic patients, the ICER value ranged from $206,409 to $735,519. The ICERs for later-onset forms of SMA (2, 3 and 4) were more diverse ranging from $275,943 to $8,438,049. Conclusion This review confirms the substantial cost burden of standard of care for SMA patients and the high cost-effectiveness ratios of the approved drugs at the current price when delivered in post-symptomatic patients. Since few studies have been conducted so far, there is a need for further prospective and independent economic studies in pre- and post-symptomatic patients.

show abstract

“…We applied the CHEERS checklist [18] as it looks particularly at the quality of reporting, a core criterion for successful model replication, and as it was found to be the most commonly used checklist since 2017 in a recently published systematic review [3]. Other frequently applied checklists (such as the Phillips checklist [24] or the CHEC project [25]) assess the quality of conducting the health economic study, which was not our key focus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Method replicability and reproduction of results, which in other disciplines are common criteria of adequate research reporting to assure scientific rigor, are gaining importance in the field of health economic modeling, and have been the subject of recent studies [1,2]. In the field of health economic modeling, the topics of research reporting, model transparency, and model quality have been commonly discussed and investigated in great detail; this is reflected in the availability and application of multiple quality and reporting standards for health economic assessments [3][4][5]. A recently published review investigated the definitions of replicability in other disciplines, and produced a set of definitions for the success of result reproduction in health economic modeling [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Replication of Published Health Economic Obesity Models: Assessment of Facilitators, Hurdles and Reproduction Success

Schwander

Nuijten²,

Evers

et al. 2021

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This research aims to (1) replicate published health economic models, (2) compare reproduced results with original results, (3) identify facilitators and hurdles to model replicability and determine reproduction success, and (4) suggest model replication reporting standards to enhance model reproducibility, in the context of health economic obesity models. Methods Four health economic obesity models simulating an adult UK population were identified, selected for replication, and evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Reproduction results were compared to original results, focusing on cost-effectiveness outcomes, and the resulting reproduction success was assessed by published criteria. Replication facilitators and hurdles were identified and transferred into related reporting standards. Results All four case studies were state-transition models simulating costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Comparing original versus reproduction outcomes, the following deviation ranges were observed: costs − 3.9 to 16.1% (mean over all model simulations 3.78%), QALYs − 3.7 to 2.1% (mean − 0.11%), and average cost-utility ratios − 3.0 to 17.9% (mean 4.28%). Applying different published criteria, an overall reproduction success was observed for three of four models. Key replication facilitators were input data tables and model diagrams, while missing standard deviations and missing formulas for equations were considered as key hurdles. Conclusions This study confirms the feasibility of rebuilding health economic obesity models, but minor to major assumptions were needed to fill reporting gaps. Model replications can help to assess the quality of health economic model documentation and can be used to validate current model reporting practices. Simple changes to actual CHEERS reporting criteria may solve identified replication hurdles.

show abstract

Use of Checklists in Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations, 2010 to 2018

Cited by 63 publications

References 28 publications

Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review

Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review

Systematic literature review of the economic burden of spinal muscular atrophy and economic evaluations of treatments

Replication of Published Health Economic Obesity Models: Assessment of Facilitators, Hurdles and Reproduction Success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About